Products.—Ground-nuts (Arachis hypogaea), rubber, beeswax, palm kernels, rice, cotton, and millet are the chief productions. Millet and rice are the staple food of the people. The curing of hides, the catching and drying of fish, boat-building, and especially the weaving of cotton into cloths called “pagns,” afford employment to a considerable number of persons. Formerly the principal exports, besides slaves, were gold-dust, wax and hides, the gold being obtained from the Futa Jallon district farther inland. Between 1830 and 1840 from 1500 to 2000 oz. of gold were exported annually, but shipments ceased soon afterwards, though small quantities of gold-dust can still be obtained from native goldsmiths. The export of hides received a severe check in 1892-1893 through the death of nearly all the cattle, but after an interval of seven or eight years the industry gradually revived. The value of hides exported increased from £520 in 1902 to £9615 in 1907. The collection of rubber was started about 1880, but the trade has not assumed large proportions. In 1907 the value of the rubber exported was £4602. The export of wax, valued at £37,000 in 1843, had dwindled in 1907 to £2325. The cultivation of the ground-nut, first exported in 1830, assumed importance by 1837, and by 1850 had become the chief industry of the colony. In 1907 the value of the nuts was £256,685, over11⁄12of the total exports (exclusive of specie). Nearly the whole male population is engaged in the industry for eight months of the year. Planted in June, after the early rains, the crop is reaped in October or November and exported to Europe (4⁄5to Marseilles) for the extraction of its oil, which is usually sold as olive oil. A feature of the industry is the appearance at the beginning of the planting season of thousands of men from a distance, “strange farmers,” as they are called, who are housed and fed and given farms to cultivate. In return they have to give half the produce to the landlords. As soon as he has sold his nuts, the “strange farmer” goes off, often not returning for years.Apart from the cultivation of the ground-nut, the agricultural resources of the country are undeveloped. Large herds of cattle are kept by the Fula, and in cattle rich natives usually invest their wealth. Land can be hired for 2d. an acre per annum for twenty-one years. All land lying vacant or unused, or to which the occupier is unable to produce any title, is vested in the crown. A botanical station was opened in 1894, and the cultivation of American and Egyptian cotton was taken in hand in 1902. The experiment proved discouraging. Great difficulty was experienced in getting farmers to grow cotton for export, as unless carried on on highly scientific lines its cultivation is not so profitable as that of the ground-nut. The principal imports, of which over2⁄3come from Great Britain or British colonies, are cotton goods, kola-nuts (from Sierra Leone), tobacco, rice, sugar and spirits. In the ten years 1898 to 1907 the average annual value of the exports was £301,000, of the imports £316,000. There are no mines in the colony, nor any apparent mineral wealth, except ridges of ironstone in the regions above McCarthy’s Island. Bathurst is in telegraphic communication with Europe and the rest of Africa. There are no railways in the colony, but it is traversed by well-made roads of a uniform width of 18 ft. The Liverpool mail steamers call at the port every fortnight. A government steamer runs regularly from Bathurst to McCarthy’s Island, and a smaller boat plies on the upper river. The shipping trade is chiefly British; French and German tonnage coming next.Surrounded on all sides, save seawards, by French territory, the colony largely depends, economically, upon France, to which country most of the exports go. A considerable entrepôt trade is also done with the neighbouring French colonies. The extent of French influence is indicated by the fact that the five-franc piece, locally known as a dollar, is largely circulated throughout the protectorate, and is accepted as legal tender, although the currency in the colony proper is the English coinage.Administration, Revenue, &c.—The Gambia is administered by a governor, assisted by an executive and a legislative council. On the last-named body nominated unofficial members have seats. The colony is self-supporting and has no public debt. The revenue, which in 1906 for the first time exceeded £60,000, is mainly derived from customs. A company of the West African Frontier Force is maintained. Travelling commissioners visit the five districts into which, for administrative purposes, the protectorate is divided, and in which the native form of government prevails. From the native law-courts appeal can be made to the supreme court at Bathurst. There is also at Bathurst a Mahommedan court, established in 1906, for the trial of cases involving the civil status of Moslems.Primary schools are maintained by the various religious denominations, and receive grants from government. The Wesleyans havealso a secondary and a technical school. There is a privately supported school for Mahommedans at Bathurst. The Anglicans, Wesleyans and Roman Catholics have numerous converts.
Products.—Ground-nuts (Arachis hypogaea), rubber, beeswax, palm kernels, rice, cotton, and millet are the chief productions. Millet and rice are the staple food of the people. The curing of hides, the catching and drying of fish, boat-building, and especially the weaving of cotton into cloths called “pagns,” afford employment to a considerable number of persons. Formerly the principal exports, besides slaves, were gold-dust, wax and hides, the gold being obtained from the Futa Jallon district farther inland. Between 1830 and 1840 from 1500 to 2000 oz. of gold were exported annually, but shipments ceased soon afterwards, though small quantities of gold-dust can still be obtained from native goldsmiths. The export of hides received a severe check in 1892-1893 through the death of nearly all the cattle, but after an interval of seven or eight years the industry gradually revived. The value of hides exported increased from £520 in 1902 to £9615 in 1907. The collection of rubber was started about 1880, but the trade has not assumed large proportions. In 1907 the value of the rubber exported was £4602. The export of wax, valued at £37,000 in 1843, had dwindled in 1907 to £2325. The cultivation of the ground-nut, first exported in 1830, assumed importance by 1837, and by 1850 had become the chief industry of the colony. In 1907 the value of the nuts was £256,685, over11⁄12of the total exports (exclusive of specie). Nearly the whole male population is engaged in the industry for eight months of the year. Planted in June, after the early rains, the crop is reaped in October or November and exported to Europe (4⁄5to Marseilles) for the extraction of its oil, which is usually sold as olive oil. A feature of the industry is the appearance at the beginning of the planting season of thousands of men from a distance, “strange farmers,” as they are called, who are housed and fed and given farms to cultivate. In return they have to give half the produce to the landlords. As soon as he has sold his nuts, the “strange farmer” goes off, often not returning for years.
Apart from the cultivation of the ground-nut, the agricultural resources of the country are undeveloped. Large herds of cattle are kept by the Fula, and in cattle rich natives usually invest their wealth. Land can be hired for 2d. an acre per annum for twenty-one years. All land lying vacant or unused, or to which the occupier is unable to produce any title, is vested in the crown. A botanical station was opened in 1894, and the cultivation of American and Egyptian cotton was taken in hand in 1902. The experiment proved discouraging. Great difficulty was experienced in getting farmers to grow cotton for export, as unless carried on on highly scientific lines its cultivation is not so profitable as that of the ground-nut. The principal imports, of which over2⁄3come from Great Britain or British colonies, are cotton goods, kola-nuts (from Sierra Leone), tobacco, rice, sugar and spirits. In the ten years 1898 to 1907 the average annual value of the exports was £301,000, of the imports £316,000. There are no mines in the colony, nor any apparent mineral wealth, except ridges of ironstone in the regions above McCarthy’s Island. Bathurst is in telegraphic communication with Europe and the rest of Africa. There are no railways in the colony, but it is traversed by well-made roads of a uniform width of 18 ft. The Liverpool mail steamers call at the port every fortnight. A government steamer runs regularly from Bathurst to McCarthy’s Island, and a smaller boat plies on the upper river. The shipping trade is chiefly British; French and German tonnage coming next.
Surrounded on all sides, save seawards, by French territory, the colony largely depends, economically, upon France, to which country most of the exports go. A considerable entrepôt trade is also done with the neighbouring French colonies. The extent of French influence is indicated by the fact that the five-franc piece, locally known as a dollar, is largely circulated throughout the protectorate, and is accepted as legal tender, although the currency in the colony proper is the English coinage.
Administration, Revenue, &c.—The Gambia is administered by a governor, assisted by an executive and a legislative council. On the last-named body nominated unofficial members have seats. The colony is self-supporting and has no public debt. The revenue, which in 1906 for the first time exceeded £60,000, is mainly derived from customs. A company of the West African Frontier Force is maintained. Travelling commissioners visit the five districts into which, for administrative purposes, the protectorate is divided, and in which the native form of government prevails. From the native law-courts appeal can be made to the supreme court at Bathurst. There is also at Bathurst a Mahommedan court, established in 1906, for the trial of cases involving the civil status of Moslems.
Primary schools are maintained by the various religious denominations, and receive grants from government. The Wesleyans havealso a secondary and a technical school. There is a privately supported school for Mahommedans at Bathurst. The Anglicans, Wesleyans and Roman Catholics have numerous converts.
History.—Of the early history of the Gambia district there is scant mention. At what period the stone circles and pillars (apparently of a “Druidical” character), whose ruins are found at several places along the upper Gambia, were erected is not known. Those at Lamin Koto, on the right bank of the river opposite McCarthy’s Island, are still in good preservation, and are an object of veneration to the Mahommedans (seeGeog. Journ.vol. xii., 1898). The country appears to have formed part, successively, of the states of Ghana, Melle and Songhoi. The relations, political and commercial, of the natives were all with the north and east; consequently no large town was founded on the banks of the river, nor any trade carried on (before the coming of the white man) by vessels sailing the ocean. About the 11th century the district came under Mahommedan influence.
The Portuguese visited the Gambia in the 15th century, and in the beginning of the 16th century were trading in the lower river. Embassies were sent from the Portuguese stations inland to Melle to open up trade with the interior, but about the middle of the century this trade—apparently mostly in gold and slaves—declined. At the end of the century the river was known as the resort of banished men and fugitives from Portugal and Spain. It was on the initiative of Portuguese living in England that Queen Elizabeth, in 1588, granted a patent to “certain merchants of Exeter and others of the west parts and of London for a trade to the river of Senega and Gambra in Guinea.” This company was granted a monopoly of trade for ten years. Its operations led to no permanent settlement in the Gambia. In 1618 James I. granted a charter to another company named “The Company of Adventurers of London trading into Africa,” and formed at the instigation of Sir Robert Rich, afterwards earl of Warwick, for trade with the Gambia and the Gold Coast. This company sought to open up trade with Timbuktu, then believed to be a great mart for gold, which reached the lower Gambia in considerable quantities. With this object George Thompson (a merchant who had traded with Barbary) was sent out in the “Catherine,” and ascended the Gambia in his ship to Kassan, a Portuguese trading town, thence continuing his journey in small boats. In his absence the “Catherine” was seized and the crew murdered by Portuguese and half-castes, and Thompson himself was later on murdered by natives. Two years afterwards Richard Jobson, another agent of the Company of Adventurers, advanced beyond the falls of Barraconda; and he was followed, about forty years later, by Vermuyden, a Dutch merchant, who on his return to Europe asserted that he had reached a country full of gold.
The Company of Adventurers had built a fort near the mouth of the Gambia. This was superseded in 1664 by a fort built by Captain (afterwards Admiral Sir Robert) Holmes on a small island 20 m. from the mouth of the river and named Fort James, in honour of the duke of York (James II.). This fort was built expressly to defend the British trade against the Dutch, and from that time the British remained in permanent occupation of one or more ports on the river. In 1723 Captain Bartholomew Stibbs was sent out by the Royal African Company, which had succeeded the earlier companies, to verify Vermuyden’s reports of gold. He proceeded 60 m. above the falls, but the land of gold was not found. The French now became rivals for the trade of the Gambia, but the treaty of Versailles in 1783 assigned the trade in the river to Britain, reserving, however, Albreda for French trade, while it assigned the Senegal to France, with the reservation of the right of the British to trade at Portendic for gum. This arrangement remained in force till 1857, when an exchange of possessions was effected and the lower Gambia became a purely British river. In the period between the signing of the treaty of Versailles and 1885 the small territories which form the colony proper were acquired by purchase or cession from native kings. St Mary’s Isle was acquired in 1806; McCarthy’s Isle was bought in 1823; the Ceded Mile was granted by the king of Barra in 1826; and British Kommbo between 1840 and 1855. During this period the colony had gone through an economic crisis by the abolition of the slave trade (1807), which had been since 1662 its chief financial support. The beginning of a return to prosperity came in 1816 when some British traders, obliged to leave Senegal on the restoration of that country to France after the Napoleonic wars, founded a settlement on St Mary’s Isle. From that year the existing colony, as distinct from trading on the river, dates. The Gambia witnessed many administrative changes. When the slave trade was abolished, the settlement was placed under the jurisdiction of the governor of Sierra Leone, and was formally annexed to Sierra Leone on the dissolution of the Royal African Company (1822). It so remained until 1843, when the Gambia was made an independent colony, its first governor being Henry Frowd Seagram. Afterwards (1866) the Gambia became a portion of the officially styled “West African Settlements.” In 1883 it was again made a separate government, administered as a crown colony. Between the years last mentioned—1866-1888—the colony had suffered from the retrograde policy adopted by parliament in respect to the West African Settlements (videReport of the Select Committee of 1865).
In 1870 negotiations were opened between France and Great Britain on the basis of a mutual exchange of territories in West Africa. Suspended owing to the outbreak of the Franco-Prussian War the negotiations were resumed in 1876. “Definite proposals were at that time formulated by which the Gambia was to be exchanged for all posts by France between the Rio Pongas (Pongo river, French Guinea) and the Gabun. This would have been a comprehensive and intelligible arrangement, but so strong a feeling in opposition to any cession of British territory was manifested in parliament, and by various mercantile bodies, that the government of the day was unable to press the scheme.”1Nothing was done, however, to secure for the Gambia a suitablehinterland, and in 1877 the 4th earl of Carnarvon (then colonial secretary) warned British traders that they proceeded beyond McCarthy’s Isle at their own risk. Meantime the French from Senegal pushed their frontier close to the British settlements, so that when the boundaries were settled by the agreement of the 10th of August 1889 with France, Great Britain was able to secure only a ten-kilometre strip on either side of the river. This document fixed the frontier of the British protectorate inland at a radius of 10 m. from the centre of the town of Yarbatenda; which town is situated at the limit of navigability of the Gambia from the sea. By Art. 5 of the Anglo-French convention of the 8th of April 1904, Yarbatenda was ceded to France, with the object of giving that country a port on the river accessible to sea-going merchantmen.
Since 1871 the colony had been self-supporting, but on the acquirement of the protectorate it was decided, in order to balance increasing expenditure, to impose a “hut tax” on the natives. This was done in 1895. The tax, which averages 4s. per annum for a family, met with no opposition.
In 1892 a slave-raiding chief, named Fodi Kabba, had to be forcibly expelled from British territory. In 1894 another slave-raider, Fodi Silah, gave much trouble to the protectorate. An expedition under Captain E.H. (afterwards admiral) Gamble succeeded in routing him, and Fodi Silah took refuge in French territory, where he died. During the expedition Captain Gamble was led into an ambush, and in this engagement lost 15 killed and 47 wounded. In 1900 trouble again arose through the agency of Fodi Kabba, who had fixed his residence at Medina, in French territory. Two travelling commissioners (Mr F.C. Sitwell and Mr Silva) were murdered in June of that year, at a place called Suankandi, and a punitive expedition was sent out under Colonel H.E. Brake. Suankandi was captured and, the French co-operating, Medina was also captured, Fodi Kabba being killed on the 23rd of March 1901.
The people of the protectorate are in general peaceful and contented, and slave trading is a thing of the past. Provision was moreover made by an ordinance of 1906 for the extinction of slavery itself throughout the protectorate, it being enacted thathenceforth all children born of slaves were free from birth, and that all slaves became free on the death of their master.
See theAnnual Reportson the colony published by the colonial office, London, which give the latest official information; C.P. Lucas’sHistorical Geography of the British Colonies, vol. iii.,West Africa(2nd ed., Oxford, 1900) (this book contains valuable bibliographical notes); andThe Gambia Colony and Protectorate, an official handbook (with map and considerable historical information), by F.B. Archer, treasurer of the colony (London, 1906). Early accounts of the country will be found in vol. ii. of Thomas Astley’sNew General Collection of Voyages and Travels(London, 1745-1747). See also Major W. Gray and Surgeon Dochard,Travels in Western Africa in 1818-1821, from the River Gambia ... to the River Niger(London, 1829). The flora has been the subject of a special study, A. Rançon,La Flore utile du bassin de la Gambie(Bordeaux, 1895). Most of the books mentioned underGold Coastalso deal with the Gambia.
See theAnnual Reportson the colony published by the colonial office, London, which give the latest official information; C.P. Lucas’sHistorical Geography of the British Colonies, vol. iii.,West Africa(2nd ed., Oxford, 1900) (this book contains valuable bibliographical notes); andThe Gambia Colony and Protectorate, an official handbook (with map and considerable historical information), by F.B. Archer, treasurer of the colony (London, 1906). Early accounts of the country will be found in vol. ii. of Thomas Astley’sNew General Collection of Voyages and Travels(London, 1745-1747). See also Major W. Gray and Surgeon Dochard,Travels in Western Africa in 1818-1821, from the River Gambia ... to the River Niger(London, 1829). The flora has been the subject of a special study, A. Rançon,La Flore utile du bassin de la Gambie(Bordeaux, 1895). Most of the books mentioned underGold Coastalso deal with the Gambia.
1Extract from a despatch of Lord Salisbury to the British ambassador to France, dated 30th of March 1892.
1Extract from a despatch of Lord Salisbury to the British ambassador to France, dated 30th of March 1892.
GAMBIER, JAMES GAMBIER,Baron(1756-1833), English admiral, was born on the 13th of October 1756 at the Bahamas, of which his father, John Gambier, was at that time lieutenant-governor. He entered the navy in 1767 as a midshipman on board the “Yarmouth,” under the command of his uncle; and, his family interest obtaining for him rapid promotion, he was raised in 1778 to the rank cf post-captain, and appointed to the “Raleigh,” a fine 32-gun frigate. At the peace of 1783 he was placed on half-pay; but, on the outbreak of the war of the French Revolution, he was appointed to the command of the 74-gun ship “Defence,” under Lord Howe; and in her he had an honourable share in the battle on the 1st of June 1794. In recognition of his services on this occasion, Captain Gambier received the gold medal, and was made a colonel of marines; the following year he was advanced to the rank of rear-admiral, and appointed one of the lords of the admiralty. In this office he continued for six years, till, in February 1801, he, a vice-admiral of 1799, hoisted his flag on board the “Neptune,” of 98 guns, as third in command of the Channel Fleet under Admiral Cornwallis, where, however, he remained for but a year, when he was appointed governor of Newfoundland and commander-in-chief of the ships on that station. In May 1804 he returned to the admiralty, and with a short intermission in 1806, continued there during the naval administration of Lord Melville, of his uncle, Lord Barham, and of Lord Mulgrave. In November 1805 he was raised to the rank of admiral; and in the summer of 1807, whilst still a lord of the admiralty, he was appointed to the command of the fleet ordered to the Baltic, which, in concert with the army under Lord Cathcart, reduced Copenhagen, and enforced the surrender of the Danish navy, consisting of nineteen ships of the line, besides frigates, sloops, gunboats, and naval stores. This service was considered by the government as worthy of special acknowledgment; the naval and military commanders, officers, seamen and soldiers received the thanks of both Houses of Parliament, and Admiral Gambier was rewarded with a peerage.
In the spring of the following year he gave up his seat at the admiralty on being appointed to the command of the Channel Fleet; and in that capacity he witnessed the partial, and prevented the total, destruction of the French fleet in Basque Roads, on the 12th of April 1809. It is in connexion with this event, which might have been as memorable in the history of the British navy as it is in the life of Lord Dundonald (seeDundonald), that Lord Gambier’s name is now best known. A court-martial, assembled by order of a friendly admiralty, and presided over by a warm partisan, “most honourably acquitted” him on the charge “that, on the 12th of April, the enemy’s ships being then on fire, and the signal having been made that they could be destroyed, he did, for a considerable time, neglect or delay taking effectual measures for destroying them”; but this decision was in reality nothing more than a party statement of the fact that a commander-in-chief, a supporter of the government, is not to be condemned or broken for not being a person of brilliant genius or dauntless resolution. No one now doubts that the French fleet should have been reduced to ashes, and might have been, had Lord Gambier had the talents, the energy, or the experience of many of his juniors. He continued to hold the command of the Channel Fleet for the full period of three years, at the end of which time—in 1811—he was superseded. In 1814 he acted in a civil capacity as chief commissioner for negotiating a treaty of peace with the United States; for his exertions in which business he was honoured with the Grand Cross of the Bath. In 1830 he was raised to the high rank of admiral of the fleet, and he died on the 19th of April 1833.
Lord Gambier was a man of earnest, almost morbid, religious principle, and of undoubted courage; but the administration of the admiralty has seldom given rise to such flagrant scandals as during the time when he was a member of it; and through the whole war the self-esteem of the navy suffered no such wound as during Lord Gambier’s command in the Bay of Biscay.
The so-calledMemorials, Personal and Historical, of Admiral Lord Gambier, by Lady Chatterton (1861), has no historical value. The life of Lord Gambier is to be read in Marshall’sRoyal Naval Biography, in Ralfe’sNaval Biography, in Lord Dundonald’sAutobiography of a Seaman, in the Minutes of the Courts-Martial and in the general history of the period.
The so-calledMemorials, Personal and Historical, of Admiral Lord Gambier, by Lady Chatterton (1861), has no historical value. The life of Lord Gambier is to be read in Marshall’sRoyal Naval Biography, in Ralfe’sNaval Biography, in Lord Dundonald’sAutobiography of a Seaman, in the Minutes of the Courts-Martial and in the general history of the period.
GAMBIER, a village of College township, Knox county, Ohio, U.S.A., on the Kokosing river, 5 m. E. of Mount Vernon. Pop. (1900) 751; (1910) 537. It is served by the Cleveland, Akron & Columbus railway. The village is finely situated, and is the seat of Kenyon College and its theological seminary, Bexley Hall (Protestant Episcopal), and of Harcourt Place boarding school for girls (1889), also Protestant Episcopal. The college was incorporated in 1824 as the “Theological Seminary of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Ohio”; but in 1891 “Kenyon College,” the name by which the institution has always been known, became the official title. Its first exercises were held at Worthington, Ohio, in the home of Philander Chase (1775-1852), first Protestant Episcopal bishop in the North-west Territory, by whose efforts the funds for its endowment had been raised in England in 1823-1824, the chief donors being Lords Kenyon and Gambier. The first permanent building, “Old Kenyon” (still standing, and used as a dormitory), was erected on Gambier Hill in 1827 in the midst of a forest. In 1907-1908 the theological seminary had 18 students and the collegiate department 119.
Some account of the founding of the college may be found in Bishop Chase’sReminiscences; an Autobiography, comprising a History of the Principal Events in the Author’s Life to 1847(2 vols., New York, 1848).
Some account of the founding of the college may be found in Bishop Chase’sReminiscences; an Autobiography, comprising a History of the Principal Events in the Author’s Life to 1847(2 vols., New York, 1848).
GAMBOGE(from Camboja, a name of the district whence it is obtained), a gum-resin procured fromGarcinia Hanburii, a dioecious tree with leathery, laurel-like leaves, small yellow flowers, and usually square-shaped and four-seeded fruit, a member of the natural order Guttiferae, and indigenous to Cambodia and parts of Siam and of the south of Cochin China, formerly comprised in Cambojan territory. The juice, which when hardened constitutes gamboge, is contained in the bark of the tree, chiefly in numerous ducts in its middle layer, and from this it is procured by making incisions, bamboo joints being placed to receive it as it exudes. Gamboge occurs in commerce in cylindrical pieces, known as pipe or roll gamboge, and also, usually of inferior quality, in cakes or amorphous masses. It is of a dirty orange externally; is hard and brittle, breaks with a conchoidal and reddish-yellow, glistening fracture, and affords a brilliant yellow powder; is odourless, and has a taste at first slight, but subsequently acrid; forms with water an emulsion; and consists of from 20 to 25% of gum soluble in water, and from 70 to 75% of a resin. Its commonest adulterants are rice-flour and pulverized bark.
Gamboge (Cambogia) is a drastic hydragogue cathartic, causing much griping and irritation of the intestine. A small quantity is absorbed, adding a yellow ingredient to the urine and acting as a mild diuretic. Its irritant action on the skin may cause the formation of pustules. It is less active only than croton oil and elaterium, and may be given in doses of half to two grains, combined with some sedative such as hyoscyamus, in apoplexy and in extreme cases of dropsy. Gamboge is used as a pigment, and as a colouring matter for varnishes. It appears to have been first brought into Europe by merchants from the East at the close of the 16th century.
GAMBRINUS, a mythical Flemish king who is credited with the first brewing of beer. His name is usually derived from that of Jan Primus,i.e.Jan (John) I., the victorious duke of Brabant, from 1261 to 1294, who was president of the Brussels gild ofbrewers; his portrait with a foaming glass of ale in his hand had the place of honour in the gild-hall, and this led in time, it is suggested, to the myth of the beer-king who is usually represented outside a barrel with a tankard in his hand.
GAME,a word which in its primary and widest significance means any amusement or sport, often combined in the early examples with “glee,” “play,” “joy” or “solace.” It is a common Teutonic word, in O. Eng.gamen, in O.H.G.gaman, but only appears in modern usage outside English in Dan.gammenand Swed.gamman. The ulterior derivation is obscure, but philologists have identified it with the Goth.gaman, companion or companionship; if this be so, it is compounded of the prefixga-, with, and the root seen in “man.” Apart from its primary and general meaning the word has two specific applications, first to a contest played as a recreation or as an exhibition of skill, in accordance with rules and regulations; and, secondly, to those wild animals which are the objects of the chase, and their flesh as used for food, distinguished as such from meat, fish and poultry, and from the flesh of deer, to which the name “venison” is given. For “game,” from the legal aspect, and the laws relating to its pursuit and capture seeGame Laws. The athletic contests of the ancient Greeks (ἀγῶνες) and the public shows (ludi) of the arena and amphitheatre of the ancient Romans are treated below (Games, Classical); the various forms of modern games, indoor and outdoor, whether of skill, strength or chance, are dealt with under their specific titles. A special use (“gaming” or “gambling”) restricts the term to the playing of games for money, or to betting and wagering on the results of events, as in horse-racing, &c. (seeGaming and Wagering). “Gamble,” “gambler” and “gambling” appear very late in English. The earliest quotations in theNew English Dictionaryfor the three words are dated 1775, 1747 and 1784 respectively. They were first regarded as cant or slang words, and implied a reproach, either as referring to cheats or sharpers, or to those who played recklessly for extravagant stakes. The form of the words is obscure, but is supposed to represent a local variationgammleof the M.E.gamenian. From this word must, of course, be distinguished “gambol,” to sport, frisk, which, as the older forms (gambald, gambaud) show, is from the Fr.gambade, leap, jump, of a horse, It.gambado,gamba, leg (Mod. Fr.jambe).
GAME LAWS.This title in English law is applied to the statutes which regulate the right to pursue and take or kill certain kinds of wild animals (see above). The existence of these statutes is due to the rules of the common law as to the nature of property, and the interest of the Norman sovereigns and of feudal superiors in the pleasures of sport or the chase. The substantial basis of the law of property is physical possession of things and the power to deal with them as we see fit. By the common law wild animals are regarded asres nullius, and as not being the subject of private property until reduced into possession by being killed or captured. A bird in the hand is owned: a bird in the bush is not. Even bees do not become property until hived. “Though a swarm lights in my tree,” says Bracton, “I have no more property therein than I have in the birds which make their nests thereon.” If reclaimed or confined they become property. If they escape, the rights of the owner continue only while he is in pursuit of the fugitive,i.e.no other person can in the meantime establish a right of property against him by capturing the animal. A swarm of bees “which fly out of my hive are mine so long as I can keep them in sight and have power to pursue them.” But the right of recapture does not entitle the owner to follow his animals on to the lands of another, and the only case in which any right to follow wild animals on to the lands of others is now expressly recognized is when deer or hares are hunted with hounds or greyhounds. This recognition merely excepts such pursuit from the law as to criminal game trespass, and fox-hunters and those who course hares or hunt stags are civilly liable for trespass if they pass over land without the consent of the occupier (Paulv.Summerhayes, 1878, 4 Q.B.D. 9).
It is a maxim of the common law that things in which no one can claim any property belong to the crown by its prerogative: this rule has been applied to wild animals, and in particular to deer and what is now called “game.” The crown rights may pass to a subject by grant or equivalent prescription. In the course of time the exclusive right to take game, &c., on lands came to be regarded as incidental to the ownership or occupation of the lands. This is described as the right to gameratione soli. In certain districts of England which are crown forests or chases or legal parks, or subject to rights of free warren, the right to take deer and game is not in the owner or occupier of the soil, but is in the crown by prerogative, orratione privilegiiin the grantee of the rights of chase, park or free warren, which are anterior to and superior to those of the owner or occupier of the lands over which the privilege has been granted. In all cases where these special rights do not exist, the right to take or kill wild animals is treated as a profit incidental to the ownership or occupation of the land on which they are found, and there is no public right to take them on private land or even on a highway; nor is there any method known to the law by which the public at large or an undefined body of persons can lawfully acquire the right to take wild animalsin alieno solo.
In the nature of things the right to take wild animals is valuable as to deer and the animals usually described as game, and not as to those which are merely noxious as vermin, or simply valueless, as small birds. Upon the rules of the common law there has been grafted much legislation which up till the end of the 18th century was framed for the preservation of deer and game for the recreation and amusement of persons of fortune, and to prevent persons of inferior rank from squandering in the pursuit of game time which their station in life required to be more profitably employed. These enactments included the rigorous code known as the Laws of the Forest (seeForest Laws), as well as what are usually called the Game Laws.
In England the older statutes relating to game were all repealed early in the 19th century. From the time of Richard II. (1389) to 1831, no person might kill game unless qualified by estate or social standing, a qualification raised from a 40s. freehold in 1389 to an interest of £100 a year in freehold or £150 in long leaseholds (1673). In 1831 this qualification by estate was abolished as to England. But in Scotland the right to hunt is theoretically reserved to persons who have in heritage that unknown quantity a “plough-gate of land” (Scots Act 1621, c. 31); and in Ireland qualifications by estate are made necessary for killing game and keeping sporting dogs (Irish Act 1698, 8 Will. III. c. 8). In England the game laws proper consist of the Night Poaching Acts of 1828 and 1844, the Game Act of 1831, the Poaching Prevention Act 1862, and the Ground Game Acts of 1880 and 1906. From the fact that the right of landowners over wild animals on their land does not amount to ownership it follows that they cannot prosecute any one for stealing live wild animals: and that apart from the game laws the only remedy against poachers is by civil action for trespass. As between trespasser and landowner the law is peculiar (Bladesv.Higgs, 1865, 11 H.L.C. 621). If A starts and kills a hare on B’s land the dead hare belongs to B (ratione soli) and not to A, though he has taken the hare by his own efforts (per industriam). But if A hunts the hare from B’s land on to C’s land and there kills it, the dead hare belongs to A and not to B or C. It is not B’s because it was not taken on his land, and it is not C’s because it was not started on his land. In other words the right of each owner is limited to animals both started and killed on his own land, and in the case of conflicting claims to the animal taken (maderatione soli) the captor can make title (per industriam) against both landowners. If he is a trespasser he is liable to civil or criminal proceedings by both landowners, but the game is his unless forfeited under a statute. Another peculiar result of the law is that where trespassers (e.g.poachers) kill and carry off game or rabbits as part of one continuous transaction they are not guilty of theft, but only of game trespass (R. v.Townley, 1871, L.R. 1 C.C.R. 315), but it is theft for a trespasser to pick up and carry off a pheasant killed by the owner of the land on his own land or even a pheasant killed by an independent gang of poachers. The young of wild animals belong (propter impotentiam) to the owner of the land until they are able to fly or run away. This right does not extend to theeggs of wild birds. But the owner can reduce the eggs into possession by taking them up and setting them under hens or in enclosures. And if this is done persons who take them are thieves and not merely poachers. A game farm, like a decoy for wild water-fowl, is treated as a trade or business; but a game preserve in which full-grown animals fly or run wild is subject to the ordinary incidents of the law as to animalsferae naturae.
The classification of wild animals for purposes of sport in England is as follows:—1. Beasts of forest are hart and hind (red deer), boar, wolf and all beasts of venery.2. Beasts of chase and park are buck and doe (fallow deer), fox, marten and roe, or all beasts of venery and hunting.3. Beasts of (free) warren are roe, hare, rabbit, partridge, pheasant, woodcock, quail, rail and heron.4. Game, as defined by the Night Poaching Act of 1828 and the Game Act of 1831, is pheasant, partridge, black game, red grouse, bustard and hare. In France game (gibier) includes everything eatable that runs or flies.5. Wild fowl not in any of the previous lists which are nevertheless prized for sport,e.g.duck, snipe, plovers, &c.6. Wild birds not falling within class 4 are more or less protected against destruction by the Wild Birds Protection Acts, which were, however, passed with quite other objects than the game laws.As regards class 1 no subject without special authority of the crown may kill within a forest or its purlieus or on adjacent highways, rivers or enclosures. The right to the animals in a forest does not depend on ownership of the land but on the royal prerogative as to the animals,i.e.it exists notratione solibutratione privilegii: and this right is not in any way altered by the Game Act 1831. A chase is a forest in the hands of a subject and a legal park (which is an enclosed chase) is created by crown grant or by prescription founded on a lost grant. The rights of the grantee are in substance the same as those of the crown in a forest, and do not depend on ownership of the soil. In the case of a free warren the grantee usually but not necessarily owns some or all of the soil over which the right of warren runs. The right of free warren depends on crown grant or prescription founded on lost grant, and involves a right of property over beasts and fowl of warren on all lands within the franchise. As will appear from the list above, some game birds are not fowl of warren,e.g.black game and red grouse (Duke of Devonshirev.Lodge, 1827, 7 B. & C. 39). Free warren is quite different from ordinary warrens, in which hares or rabbits are bred by the owner of the soil for sport or profit. Ground game in such warrens is protected under the Larceny Act 1861, s. 17, as well as by the game laws. In manors, of which none have been created since 1290, the lord by his franchise had the sporting rights over the manor, but at the present time this right is restricted to the commons and wastes of the manor, the freehold whereof is in him, and does not extend to enclosed freeholds nor as a general rule to enclosed copyholds, unless at the time of enclosure the sporting rights were reserved to him by the Enclosure Act or award (Sowerbyv.Smith, 1873, L.R. 8 C.P. 514). In other words his rights exist rationesoliand notratione privilegii. The Game Act 1831 gives lords of manors and privileged persons certain rights as to appointing gamekeepers with special powers to protect game within the district over which their rights extend (ss. 13, 14, 15, 16). The game laws in no way cut down the special privileges as to forest, park, chase or free warren (1831, s. 9), and confirm the sporting right of lords of manors on the wastes of the manor (1831, s. 10). As to all lands not affected by these rights, the right to kill or take game on the land is presumably in the occupier. On letting land the owner may, subject to the qualifications hereinafter stated, reserve to himself the right to kill or take “game” or rabbits or other wild animals concurrently with or in exclusion of the tenant. Where the exclusive right is in the landlord the tenant is not only liable to forfeiture or damages for breaches of covenants in the lease, but is also liable to penalties on summary conviction if without the lessor’s authority he pursues, kills or takes any “game” upon the land or gives permission to others to do so (1831, s. 12). In effect he is made criminally liable for game trespass on lands in his own occupation, so far as relates to game, but is not so liable if he takes rabbits, snipe, woodcock, quails or rails.The net effect of the common law and the game laws is to give the occupier of lands and the owner of sporting rights over them the following remedies against persons who infringe their right to kill or take wild animals on the land. A stranger who enters on the land of another to take any wild animals is liable to the occupier for trespass on the land and for the animals started and killed on the land by the trespasser. He is also criminally liable for game trespass if he has entered on the land to search for or in pursuit of “game” or woodcock, snipe, quail, landrails or rabbits. If the trespass is in the daytime (whether on lands of the subject or in royal forests, &c.), the penalty on conviction may not exceed 40s., unless five or more persons go together, in which case the maximum penalty is £5. If a single offender refuses his name or address or gives a false address to the occupier or to the owner of the sporting rights or his representatives, or refuses to leave the land, he may be arrested by them, and is liable to a penalty not exceeding £5, and if five or more concerned together in game trespass have a gun with them and use violence, intimidation or menace, to prevent the approach of persons entitled to take their names or order them off the land, they incur a further penalty up to £5.If the trespass is in search or pursuit of gameor rabbitsin the nighttime, the maximum penalty on a first conviction is imprisonment with hard labour for not over three months; on a second, imprisonment, &c., for not over six months, and the offender may be put under sureties not to offend again for a year after a first conviction or for two years after a second conviction. For a first or second offence the conviction is summary, subject to appeal to quarter sessions, but for a third offence the offender is tried on indictment and is liable to penal servitude (3-7 years) or imprisonment with hard labour (2 years). The offenders may be arrested by the owner or occupier of the land or their servants, and if the offenders assault or offer violence by firearms or offensive weapons they are liable to be indicted and on conviction punished to the same extent as in the last offence. In 1844 the above penalties were extended to persons found by night on highways in search or pursuit of game. If three or more trespass together on land by night to take or destroy game or rabbits, and any of them is armed with firearms, bludgeon or other offensive weapon, they are liable to be indicted and on conviction sentenced to penal servitude (3-14 years) or imprisonment with hard labour (2 years). By “day” time is meant from the beginning of the first hour before sunrise to the end of the first hour after sunset, and by “night” from the end of the first hour after sunset to the beginning of the first hour before sunrise (act of 1828, s. 12; act of 1831, s. 34). The time is reckoned by local and not by Greenwich time.The penalties for night poaching are severe, but encounters between the owners of sporting rights and armed gangs of poachers have often been attended by homicide. It is to be observed that it is illegal and severely punishable to set traps or loaded spring guns for poachers (Offences against the Person Act 1861, s. 31), whereby any grievous bodily harm is intended or may be caused even to a trespasser, so that the incursions of poachers can be prevented only by personal attendance on the scene of their activities; and it is to be observed also that the provisions of the Game Laws above stated are, so far as concerns private land, left to be enforced by private enterprise without the interference of the police, with the result that in some districts there are scenes of private nocturnal war. Even in the Night Poaching Act 1844, which applies to highways, the arrest of offenders is made by owners, occupiers or their gamekeepers. The police were not given any direct authority as to poachers until the Poaching Prevention Act 1862, under which a constable is empowered “on any highway, street or public place, to search any person whom he may have good cause to suspect of coming from any land where he shall have been unlawfully in search or pursuit of ‘game,’ or any persons aiding or abetting such person, and having in his possession any game unlawfully obtained, or any gun, part of gun, or nets or engines used for the killing or taking game; and also to stop and search any cart or other conveyance in or upon which such constable or peace officer shall have good cause to suspect that any such game, or any such article or thing, is being carried by such person.” If any such thing be found the constable is to detain it, and apply for a summons against the offender, summoning him to appear before a petty sessional court, on conviction before which he may be fined not more than £5, and forfeits the game, guns, &c., found in his possession. In this act “game” includes woodcock, snipe and rabbits, and the eggs of game birds other than bustards; and the act applies to poaching either by night or by day. In all cases of summary conviction for poaching an appeal lies to quarter sessions. In all cases of poaching the game, &c., taken may be forfeited by the court which tries the poacher.Close Time.—On certain days, and within periods known as “close time,” it is illegal to kill deer or game. The present close times are as follows:—England.Ireland.Scotland.HareNoneApril 21 to Aug. 11*NoneRed deer (male)NoneJan. 1 to June 9NoneFallow deerNoneSept. 29 to June 10NoneRoe deerNoneNoneNonePheasantFeb. 1 to Sept. 30Feb.1 to Sept. 30 (1845)Feb. 1 to Sept. 30PartridgeFeb. 1 to Aug. 31Feb. 1 to Aug. 31 (1899)Feb. 1 to Aug. 31Black gameDec. 10 to Aug. 20**Dec. 10 to Aug. 20Dec. 10 to Aug. 20Red grouseDec. 10 to Aug. 12Dec. 10 to Aug. 12Dec. 10 to Aug. 12PtarmiganNoneDec. 10 to Aug. 20Dec. 10 to Aug. 12Bustard (wild turkey)March 1 to Sept. 1Jan. 10 to Sept. 1None* Unless varied by order of lord-lieutenant.** Except in Devon, Somerset and New Forest, where to Sept. 1.In England and Ireland the winged game above named and hares may not be killed on Sundays or Christmas Day. It is illegal to sell or expose for sale hares or leverets in March, April, May, June and July. It is illegal throughout the United Kingdom to buy or sell winged game birds after ten days from the beginning of the close season as fixed by the English law (1831, s. 4; 1860, s. 13). This prohibition applies to the sale of live game, British or foreign, and to the sale of British dead game. It is illegal to lay poison for game or rabbits except in rabbit holes, and it is illegal to kill game by firearms at night. Wild birds not within the list above given but of interest for sport are protected by close times fixed under the Wild Birds Protection Acts, which may vary in each county of each kingdom.Licences.—Besides the restrictions on the right to take or kill game which arise out of the law as to ownership or occupation of the lands on which it is found, there are further restrictions imposed by the laws of excise. From the time of Richard II. (1389) until 1831 the right of persons other than gamekeepers properly deputed by the lord of a manor to take game was made to depend on the social rank of the person, or on the amount of his interest in land, which ranged from a 40s. freehold (in 1389) to £100 a year (1671). These restrictions were abolished in 1831, and the right to kill game was made conditional on the possession of a game certificate, now called a game licence in Great Britain (act of 1831, ss. 6, 23). By s. 4 of the Game Licences Act 1860 “any person, before he shall in Great Britain take, kill or pursue, or aid or assist in any manner in the taking, killing or pursuing, by any means whatever, or use any dog, gun, net or other engine for the purpose of taking, killing or pursuing any game, or any woodcock, snipe, quail, landrail, or any coney, or any deer, shall take out a proper licence to kill game under this act”—subject to a penalty of £20. There are certain exceptions and exemptions as to royal personages, royal gamekeepers, and with reference to taking woodcock or snipe by nets or springes, by coursing or hunting hares or deer, or killing deer, rabbits or hares (Hares Acts 1848, Game Licences Act 1860) in certain enclosed lands by the owners or occupiers. A licence is not required for beaters and assistants who go out with holders of a game licence. The licence is granted by the Inland Revenue Department. The issue is regulated by the Game Licences Act 1860 as amended by the Customs and Inland Revenue Act 1883. The licences now in use are of four kinds:—Those taken out after 31st July—To expire on the next 31st July£3 0 0To expire on the next 31st October2 0 0Those taken out after 1st November—To expire on the next 31st July2 0 0Those taken out for any continuous period of fourteen days specified in the licence1 0 0In the case of gamekeepers in Great Britain for whom the employer pays the duty on male servants, the annual licence fee is £2, but the licence extends only to lands on which the employer has a right to kill game. A licence granted to a person in his own right and not as gamekeeper or servant is effective throughout the United Kingdom. The game licence does not authorize trespass on the lands of others in search of game nor the shooting of game, &c., at night, and is forfeited on a conviction of game trespass (1831, s. 30; 1860, s. 11). Persons who have game licences need not have a gun licence, but the possession of a gun licence does not qualify the holder to kill game or even rabbits.The sale of game when killed is also subject to statutory regulation. Gamekeepers may not sell game except under the authority of their employer (1831, ss. 17, 25). Persons who hold a full game licence may sell game, but only to persons who hold a licence to deal in game. These licences are annual (expiring on the 1st of July), and are granted in London by justices of the peace, and in the rest of England by the council of the borough or urban or rural district in which the dealer seeks to carry on business (1831, s. 18; 1893, c. 73, s. 27), and a notice of the existence of the licence must be posted on the licensed premises. A licence must be taken out for each shop. The following persons are disqualified for holding the licence: innkeepers, persons holding licences to sell intoxicants, owners, guards or drivers of mail-carts, stagecoaches or public conveyances, carriers and higglers (1831, s. 18). This enactment interferes with the grant of game licences to large stores which also have licences to sell beer. The licensed dealer may buy British game only from persons who are lawfully entitled to sell game. Conviction of an offence under the Game Act 1831 avoids the licence (s. 22). The local licence must also be supplemented by an excise licence for which a fee of £2 is charged. Licensed dealers in game are prohibited from selling game killed in the United Kingdom from the tenth day after the beginning of close time to the end of that period. The provisions above stated under the act of 1831 applied only to England, but were in 1860 extended to the rest of the United Kingdom, and were in 1893 applied to dealers in game imported from abroad. The main effect of the system of licences is to prevent the disposal of game by poachers rather than to benefit the revenue.Deer.—Deer are not included within the definition of game in any of the English game laws. Deer-stealing was very seriously punished by the old law, and under an act of 9 George I. c. 22, known as the Waltham Black Act, passed because of the depredations of disguised deer-stealers in Epping Forest, it was under certain circumstances made a capital offence. At present offences with reference to deer are included in the Larceny Act 1861. It is a felony to hunt or kill deer in enclosures in forests, chases or purlieus, or in enclosed land where deer is usually kept, or after a previous conviction to hunt or kill deer in the open parts of a forest, &c., and certain minor provisions are made as to arrest by foresters, forfeiture of venison unlawfully possessed and for unlawfully setting traps for deer. These enactments do not prevent a man from killing on his own land deer which have strayed there (Threlkeldv.Smith, 1901, 2 K.B. 531). In Scotland the unlawful killing of deer is punished as theft.Eggs.—The owner or occupier of land has no property in the eggs of wild birds found on his lands unless he takes them up. But under s. 24 of the Game Act 1831 a penalty of 5s. per egg is incurred by persons who unlawfully (i.e.without being, or having licence from, the person entitled to kill the game) and wilfully take from the nest or destroy in the nest the eggs of any game bird, or of a swan, wild duck, teal or widgeon. Similar provisions exist in Ireland under an act of 1698, and by the Poaching Prevention Act 1862 (United Kingdom) power is given to constables to search persons suspected of poaching and to take from them the eggs of pheasants, partridges, grouse or black game. And the Wild Birds Protection Acts deal with the eggs of all wild birds except game and swans.Damage to Crops by Game.—Where an occupier of lands has not the right to kill game or rabbits he runs the risk of suffering damage by the depredations of the protected animals, which he may not kill without incurring a liability to summary conviction or for breach of the conditions on which he holds the land. At common law the owner of land who has reserved to himself the sporting rights, and his sporting tenants, must use the reserved rights reasonably. They are liable for any damage wilfully or unnecessarily done to the crops, &c., of the occupier, such as trampling down standing crops or breaking hedges or fences. They are not directly liable to the occupier for damage done to the crops by game bred on the land or frequenting it in the ordinary course of nature; but are not entitled to turn down game or rabbits on the land. And if game or rabbits are for the purposes of sport imported or artificially raised on land, the person who breeds or brings them there is liable for the damage done to the crops of adjoining owners or occupiers (Farrerv.Nelson, 1885, 15 Q.B.D. 258;Birkbeckv.Paget, 31 Beav. 403;Hiltonv.Green, 1862, 2 F. & F. 821).Recent legislation has greatly increased the rights of the occupiers of land as against the owners of sporting rights over it. As regards hares and rabbits the occupier’s rights are regulated by the Ground Game Act 1880 (which is expressed to be made “in the interests of good husbandry and for the better security of capital and labour invested in the cultivation of the soil”). By that act the occupier of land as incident to and inseparable from his occupation has the right to kill and take hares and rabbits on the land. The right is indefeasible and cannot be divested by contract with the owner or landlord or even by letting the occupier’s sporting rights to another. But where apart from the act the right to kill game on the land is vested in a person other than the occupier, such person has a right concurrent with the statutory right of the occupier to take hares and rabbits on the land. The act does not extend to common lands nor to lands over which rights of grazing or pasturage for not more than nine months in the year exist. Consequently over such lands exclusive rights of killing ground game still continue, and the law appears not to apply in cases where a special right of killing or taking ground game vested before the 7th of September 1880 in any person (other than the landlord) by statute, charter or franchise (s. 5). The mode of exercise of the occupier’s right is subject to certain limitations. The ground game is only to be taken by him or by persons whom he has duly authorized in writing, who must be members of his family or his servants or bona fide employed by him for reward to take ground game. The written authority must be produced on demand to persons having concurrent rights to take and kill the ground game (s. 1 (1) (c)). Firearms may not be used by night, nor may poison be used, nor may spring traps be set except in rabbit holes (s. 6); nor may ground game be killed on days or seasons or by methods prohibited by statute in 1880 (s. 10).In the case of moorland and unenclosed lands (which are not arable and do not consist of small detached portions of less than 25 acres) the occupier may between the 1st of September and the 31st of March kill and take ground game; but between the 1st of September and the 10th of December firearms may not be used (1880, s. 1 (3); 1906, s. 2). In the case of such lands the occupiers and the owners of the sporting rights may between the 1st of September and the 10th of December make and enforce for their joint benefit agreements for taking the ground game. The Agricultural Holdings Act 1906 (operating from 1909) deals,inter alia, with damage to crops by deer and winged game, but does not apply to damage by hares or rabbits. The tenant of agricultural land is entitled to compensation for damage to his crops exceeding 1s. per acre over the area affected if caused by game, “the right to kill or take which is vested neither in him nor in any one claiming under him other than the landlord and which the tenant has not permission in writing to kill” (s. 2). The right of the tenant is indefeasible and cannot becontracted away. Disputes as to amount are to be settled by arbitration; but claims to be effectual must be made as to growing crops before reaping, raising or feeding off, and as to cut crops before carrying. In the case of contracts of tenancy created before the 1st of January 1909, allowances are to be made if by their terms compensation for damage by game is stipulated for, or an allowance of an agreed amount for damage by game was expressly made in fixing the rent. The compensation is payable by the landlord subject to his right to be indemnified in cases where the sporting rights are not vested in him.Sporting Rights.—Sporting rights (i.e.rights of fowling or of shooting, or of taking or killing game or rabbits, or of fishing), when severed from the occupation of land, are subject to income or property tax, and to assessment for the purpose of local rates (Rating Act 1874); and in valuing land whether for rates or taxes the value of the sporting rights is now an important and often the chief item of value in beneficial occupation of the land. Where the sporting rights are the landlord’s, the rate thereon is paid in the first instance by the tenant and deducted from his rent. Where the sporting right is reserved and let, the rating authority may rate either the landlord or the sporting tenant as occupier of the right. The Ground Game Acts have not affected the liability to assessment of concurrent rights of killing hares and rabbits reserved by a landlord, or of a concurrent right granted by the occupier (Ryde (2nd ed.), 385-387). The ownership of sporting rights severed from the ownership or occupation of the land over which they are exercisable is not an interest in land giving the electoral franchise or a claim for compensation if the land is taken under the Lands Clauses Consolidation Acts.Scotland.—By the law of Scotland all men have right and privilege of game on their own estates as a real right incident thereto, which does not pass by an agricultural lease except by express words, or in the case of ground game by the act of 1880. The landlord is liable to the tenant for damage done to the surface of the lands in exercise of his right to the game and also for extraordinary damage by over-preserving or over-stocking. Under an act of 1877 he was liable for excessive damage done by rabbits or game reserved to or retained under a lease granted after the 1st of January 1878, or reserved by presumption of common law; this act from 1909 onwards is superseded by the provisions of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1906. Night poaching is punished by the same act as in England, and day poaching by an act of 1832 and the act of 1882. Until 1887 poaching by night under arms was a capital offence. The definition of game in Scotland for purposes of night poaching is the same as in England. The provisions of the act of 1832 as to game trespass by day apply also to deer, roe, rabbits, woodcock, snipe, rails and wild duck; but in other respects closely resemble those of the English act of 1831.Offences against the game laws are not triable by justices of the peace, but only in the sheriff court. The close time for game birds in Scotland is the same as in England, so far as dealing in them is concerned, but differs slightly as to killing. Black game may not be killed between the 10th of December and the 25th of August, nor ptarmigan between the 10th of December and the 20th of August. There is no close time for red, fallow or roe deer, or rabbits. By an old Scots act of 1621 (omitted from the recent wholesale repeal of such acts) no one may lawfully kill game in Scotland who does not own a plough-gate of land except on the land of a person so qualified.Ireland.—The common law as to game is the same for Ireland as for England. The game laws of Ireland are contained partly in acts passed prior to the union (1698, 1707, 1787 and 1797), partly in acts limited to Ireland, and as to the rest in acts common to the whole United Kingdom.Under the act of 1698 no one may kill game in Ireland who has not a freehold worth £40 a year or £1000 net personality, and elaborate provisions are made by that and later acts against the keeping of sporting dogs by persons not qualified by estate to kill game. British officers and soldiers in Ireland appear to have been much addicted to poaching, and their activities were restrained by enactments of 1698 and 1707.Night poaching in Ireland is dealt with by an act of 1826. Trespass on lands in pursuit of game to which the landlord or lessor has by reservation exclusive right is summarily punishable under an act of 1864, which includes in the definition of game, woodcock, snipe, quails, landrails, wild duck, widgeon and teal. Under the Land Act 1881 the landlord of a statutory holding may at the commencement of the term subject to the Ground Game Acts retain and exercise the exclusive right of taking “game” as above defined.A game licence is not required for taking or killing rabbits. But in other respects the law as to game licences, dog licences and licences to deal in game is the same as in Great Britain.British Possessions Abroad.—The English game laws have not been carried to any colony as part of the personal law of the colonists, nor have they been extended to them by imperial or colonial legislation. But the legislatures of many colonies have passed acts to preserve or protect native or imported wild animals, and in some of these statutes the protected animals are described as game. These statutes are free from feudal prepossessions as to sporting rights, and are framed rather on the lines of the Wild Birds Protection Acts than on the English game laws, but in some possessions,e.g.Quebec, sporting leases by the crown are recognized. The acts since 1895 are indicated in the annual summary of colonial legislation furnished in theJournalof the Society of Comparative Legislation.See also Oke’sGame Laws, 4th ed., by Willis Bund (1897); Warry,Game Laws of England(1897); Marchant and Watkins,Wild Birds Protection Act(1897).
The classification of wild animals for purposes of sport in England is as follows:—
1. Beasts of forest are hart and hind (red deer), boar, wolf and all beasts of venery.
2. Beasts of chase and park are buck and doe (fallow deer), fox, marten and roe, or all beasts of venery and hunting.
3. Beasts of (free) warren are roe, hare, rabbit, partridge, pheasant, woodcock, quail, rail and heron.
4. Game, as defined by the Night Poaching Act of 1828 and the Game Act of 1831, is pheasant, partridge, black game, red grouse, bustard and hare. In France game (gibier) includes everything eatable that runs or flies.
5. Wild fowl not in any of the previous lists which are nevertheless prized for sport,e.g.duck, snipe, plovers, &c.
6. Wild birds not falling within class 4 are more or less protected against destruction by the Wild Birds Protection Acts, which were, however, passed with quite other objects than the game laws.
As regards class 1 no subject without special authority of the crown may kill within a forest or its purlieus or on adjacent highways, rivers or enclosures. The right to the animals in a forest does not depend on ownership of the land but on the royal prerogative as to the animals,i.e.it exists notratione solibutratione privilegii: and this right is not in any way altered by the Game Act 1831. A chase is a forest in the hands of a subject and a legal park (which is an enclosed chase) is created by crown grant or by prescription founded on a lost grant. The rights of the grantee are in substance the same as those of the crown in a forest, and do not depend on ownership of the soil. In the case of a free warren the grantee usually but not necessarily owns some or all of the soil over which the right of warren runs. The right of free warren depends on crown grant or prescription founded on lost grant, and involves a right of property over beasts and fowl of warren on all lands within the franchise. As will appear from the list above, some game birds are not fowl of warren,e.g.black game and red grouse (Duke of Devonshirev.Lodge, 1827, 7 B. & C. 39). Free warren is quite different from ordinary warrens, in which hares or rabbits are bred by the owner of the soil for sport or profit. Ground game in such warrens is protected under the Larceny Act 1861, s. 17, as well as by the game laws. In manors, of which none have been created since 1290, the lord by his franchise had the sporting rights over the manor, but at the present time this right is restricted to the commons and wastes of the manor, the freehold whereof is in him, and does not extend to enclosed freeholds nor as a general rule to enclosed copyholds, unless at the time of enclosure the sporting rights were reserved to him by the Enclosure Act or award (Sowerbyv.Smith, 1873, L.R. 8 C.P. 514). In other words his rights exist rationesoliand notratione privilegii. The Game Act 1831 gives lords of manors and privileged persons certain rights as to appointing gamekeepers with special powers to protect game within the district over which their rights extend (ss. 13, 14, 15, 16). The game laws in no way cut down the special privileges as to forest, park, chase or free warren (1831, s. 9), and confirm the sporting right of lords of manors on the wastes of the manor (1831, s. 10). As to all lands not affected by these rights, the right to kill or take game on the land is presumably in the occupier. On letting land the owner may, subject to the qualifications hereinafter stated, reserve to himself the right to kill or take “game” or rabbits or other wild animals concurrently with or in exclusion of the tenant. Where the exclusive right is in the landlord the tenant is not only liable to forfeiture or damages for breaches of covenants in the lease, but is also liable to penalties on summary conviction if without the lessor’s authority he pursues, kills or takes any “game” upon the land or gives permission to others to do so (1831, s. 12). In effect he is made criminally liable for game trespass on lands in his own occupation, so far as relates to game, but is not so liable if he takes rabbits, snipe, woodcock, quails or rails.
The net effect of the common law and the game laws is to give the occupier of lands and the owner of sporting rights over them the following remedies against persons who infringe their right to kill or take wild animals on the land. A stranger who enters on the land of another to take any wild animals is liable to the occupier for trespass on the land and for the animals started and killed on the land by the trespasser. He is also criminally liable for game trespass if he has entered on the land to search for or in pursuit of “game” or woodcock, snipe, quail, landrails or rabbits. If the trespass is in the daytime (whether on lands of the subject or in royal forests, &c.), the penalty on conviction may not exceed 40s., unless five or more persons go together, in which case the maximum penalty is £5. If a single offender refuses his name or address or gives a false address to the occupier or to the owner of the sporting rights or his representatives, or refuses to leave the land, he may be arrested by them, and is liable to a penalty not exceeding £5, and if five or more concerned together in game trespass have a gun with them and use violence, intimidation or menace, to prevent the approach of persons entitled to take their names or order them off the land, they incur a further penalty up to £5.
If the trespass is in search or pursuit of gameor rabbitsin the nighttime, the maximum penalty on a first conviction is imprisonment with hard labour for not over three months; on a second, imprisonment, &c., for not over six months, and the offender may be put under sureties not to offend again for a year after a first conviction or for two years after a second conviction. For a first or second offence the conviction is summary, subject to appeal to quarter sessions, but for a third offence the offender is tried on indictment and is liable to penal servitude (3-7 years) or imprisonment with hard labour (2 years). The offenders may be arrested by the owner or occupier of the land or their servants, and if the offenders assault or offer violence by firearms or offensive weapons they are liable to be indicted and on conviction punished to the same extent as in the last offence. In 1844 the above penalties were extended to persons found by night on highways in search or pursuit of game. If three or more trespass together on land by night to take or destroy game or rabbits, and any of them is armed with firearms, bludgeon or other offensive weapon, they are liable to be indicted and on conviction sentenced to penal servitude (3-14 years) or imprisonment with hard labour (2 years). By “day” time is meant from the beginning of the first hour before sunrise to the end of the first hour after sunset, and by “night” from the end of the first hour after sunset to the beginning of the first hour before sunrise (act of 1828, s. 12; act of 1831, s. 34). The time is reckoned by local and not by Greenwich time.
The penalties for night poaching are severe, but encounters between the owners of sporting rights and armed gangs of poachers have often been attended by homicide. It is to be observed that it is illegal and severely punishable to set traps or loaded spring guns for poachers (Offences against the Person Act 1861, s. 31), whereby any grievous bodily harm is intended or may be caused even to a trespasser, so that the incursions of poachers can be prevented only by personal attendance on the scene of their activities; and it is to be observed also that the provisions of the Game Laws above stated are, so far as concerns private land, left to be enforced by private enterprise without the interference of the police, with the result that in some districts there are scenes of private nocturnal war. Even in the Night Poaching Act 1844, which applies to highways, the arrest of offenders is made by owners, occupiers or their gamekeepers. The police were not given any direct authority as to poachers until the Poaching Prevention Act 1862, under which a constable is empowered “on any highway, street or public place, to search any person whom he may have good cause to suspect of coming from any land where he shall have been unlawfully in search or pursuit of ‘game,’ or any persons aiding or abetting such person, and having in his possession any game unlawfully obtained, or any gun, part of gun, or nets or engines used for the killing or taking game; and also to stop and search any cart or other conveyance in or upon which such constable or peace officer shall have good cause to suspect that any such game, or any such article or thing, is being carried by such person.” If any such thing be found the constable is to detain it, and apply for a summons against the offender, summoning him to appear before a petty sessional court, on conviction before which he may be fined not more than £5, and forfeits the game, guns, &c., found in his possession. In this act “game” includes woodcock, snipe and rabbits, and the eggs of game birds other than bustards; and the act applies to poaching either by night or by day. In all cases of summary conviction for poaching an appeal lies to quarter sessions. In all cases of poaching the game, &c., taken may be forfeited by the court which tries the poacher.
Close Time.—On certain days, and within periods known as “close time,” it is illegal to kill deer or game. The present close times are as follows:—
In England and Ireland the winged game above named and hares may not be killed on Sundays or Christmas Day. It is illegal to sell or expose for sale hares or leverets in March, April, May, June and July. It is illegal throughout the United Kingdom to buy or sell winged game birds after ten days from the beginning of the close season as fixed by the English law (1831, s. 4; 1860, s. 13). This prohibition applies to the sale of live game, British or foreign, and to the sale of British dead game. It is illegal to lay poison for game or rabbits except in rabbit holes, and it is illegal to kill game by firearms at night. Wild birds not within the list above given but of interest for sport are protected by close times fixed under the Wild Birds Protection Acts, which may vary in each county of each kingdom.
Licences.—Besides the restrictions on the right to take or kill game which arise out of the law as to ownership or occupation of the lands on which it is found, there are further restrictions imposed by the laws of excise. From the time of Richard II. (1389) until 1831 the right of persons other than gamekeepers properly deputed by the lord of a manor to take game was made to depend on the social rank of the person, or on the amount of his interest in land, which ranged from a 40s. freehold (in 1389) to £100 a year (1671). These restrictions were abolished in 1831, and the right to kill game was made conditional on the possession of a game certificate, now called a game licence in Great Britain (act of 1831, ss. 6, 23). By s. 4 of the Game Licences Act 1860 “any person, before he shall in Great Britain take, kill or pursue, or aid or assist in any manner in the taking, killing or pursuing, by any means whatever, or use any dog, gun, net or other engine for the purpose of taking, killing or pursuing any game, or any woodcock, snipe, quail, landrail, or any coney, or any deer, shall take out a proper licence to kill game under this act”—subject to a penalty of £20. There are certain exceptions and exemptions as to royal personages, royal gamekeepers, and with reference to taking woodcock or snipe by nets or springes, by coursing or hunting hares or deer, or killing deer, rabbits or hares (Hares Acts 1848, Game Licences Act 1860) in certain enclosed lands by the owners or occupiers. A licence is not required for beaters and assistants who go out with holders of a game licence. The licence is granted by the Inland Revenue Department. The issue is regulated by the Game Licences Act 1860 as amended by the Customs and Inland Revenue Act 1883. The licences now in use are of four kinds:—
In the case of gamekeepers in Great Britain for whom the employer pays the duty on male servants, the annual licence fee is £2, but the licence extends only to lands on which the employer has a right to kill game. A licence granted to a person in his own right and not as gamekeeper or servant is effective throughout the United Kingdom. The game licence does not authorize trespass on the lands of others in search of game nor the shooting of game, &c., at night, and is forfeited on a conviction of game trespass (1831, s. 30; 1860, s. 11). Persons who have game licences need not have a gun licence, but the possession of a gun licence does not qualify the holder to kill game or even rabbits.
The sale of game when killed is also subject to statutory regulation. Gamekeepers may not sell game except under the authority of their employer (1831, ss. 17, 25). Persons who hold a full game licence may sell game, but only to persons who hold a licence to deal in game. These licences are annual (expiring on the 1st of July), and are granted in London by justices of the peace, and in the rest of England by the council of the borough or urban or rural district in which the dealer seeks to carry on business (1831, s. 18; 1893, c. 73, s. 27), and a notice of the existence of the licence must be posted on the licensed premises. A licence must be taken out for each shop. The following persons are disqualified for holding the licence: innkeepers, persons holding licences to sell intoxicants, owners, guards or drivers of mail-carts, stagecoaches or public conveyances, carriers and higglers (1831, s. 18). This enactment interferes with the grant of game licences to large stores which also have licences to sell beer. The licensed dealer may buy British game only from persons who are lawfully entitled to sell game. Conviction of an offence under the Game Act 1831 avoids the licence (s. 22). The local licence must also be supplemented by an excise licence for which a fee of £2 is charged. Licensed dealers in game are prohibited from selling game killed in the United Kingdom from the tenth day after the beginning of close time to the end of that period. The provisions above stated under the act of 1831 applied only to England, but were in 1860 extended to the rest of the United Kingdom, and were in 1893 applied to dealers in game imported from abroad. The main effect of the system of licences is to prevent the disposal of game by poachers rather than to benefit the revenue.
Deer.—Deer are not included within the definition of game in any of the English game laws. Deer-stealing was very seriously punished by the old law, and under an act of 9 George I. c. 22, known as the Waltham Black Act, passed because of the depredations of disguised deer-stealers in Epping Forest, it was under certain circumstances made a capital offence. At present offences with reference to deer are included in the Larceny Act 1861. It is a felony to hunt or kill deer in enclosures in forests, chases or purlieus, or in enclosed land where deer is usually kept, or after a previous conviction to hunt or kill deer in the open parts of a forest, &c., and certain minor provisions are made as to arrest by foresters, forfeiture of venison unlawfully possessed and for unlawfully setting traps for deer. These enactments do not prevent a man from killing on his own land deer which have strayed there (Threlkeldv.Smith, 1901, 2 K.B. 531). In Scotland the unlawful killing of deer is punished as theft.
Eggs.—The owner or occupier of land has no property in the eggs of wild birds found on his lands unless he takes them up. But under s. 24 of the Game Act 1831 a penalty of 5s. per egg is incurred by persons who unlawfully (i.e.without being, or having licence from, the person entitled to kill the game) and wilfully take from the nest or destroy in the nest the eggs of any game bird, or of a swan, wild duck, teal or widgeon. Similar provisions exist in Ireland under an act of 1698, and by the Poaching Prevention Act 1862 (United Kingdom) power is given to constables to search persons suspected of poaching and to take from them the eggs of pheasants, partridges, grouse or black game. And the Wild Birds Protection Acts deal with the eggs of all wild birds except game and swans.
Damage to Crops by Game.—Where an occupier of lands has not the right to kill game or rabbits he runs the risk of suffering damage by the depredations of the protected animals, which he may not kill without incurring a liability to summary conviction or for breach of the conditions on which he holds the land. At common law the owner of land who has reserved to himself the sporting rights, and his sporting tenants, must use the reserved rights reasonably. They are liable for any damage wilfully or unnecessarily done to the crops, &c., of the occupier, such as trampling down standing crops or breaking hedges or fences. They are not directly liable to the occupier for damage done to the crops by game bred on the land or frequenting it in the ordinary course of nature; but are not entitled to turn down game or rabbits on the land. And if game or rabbits are for the purposes of sport imported or artificially raised on land, the person who breeds or brings them there is liable for the damage done to the crops of adjoining owners or occupiers (Farrerv.Nelson, 1885, 15 Q.B.D. 258;Birkbeckv.Paget, 31 Beav. 403;Hiltonv.Green, 1862, 2 F. & F. 821).
Recent legislation has greatly increased the rights of the occupiers of land as against the owners of sporting rights over it. As regards hares and rabbits the occupier’s rights are regulated by the Ground Game Act 1880 (which is expressed to be made “in the interests of good husbandry and for the better security of capital and labour invested in the cultivation of the soil”). By that act the occupier of land as incident to and inseparable from his occupation has the right to kill and take hares and rabbits on the land. The right is indefeasible and cannot be divested by contract with the owner or landlord or even by letting the occupier’s sporting rights to another. But where apart from the act the right to kill game on the land is vested in a person other than the occupier, such person has a right concurrent with the statutory right of the occupier to take hares and rabbits on the land. The act does not extend to common lands nor to lands over which rights of grazing or pasturage for not more than nine months in the year exist. Consequently over such lands exclusive rights of killing ground game still continue, and the law appears not to apply in cases where a special right of killing or taking ground game vested before the 7th of September 1880 in any person (other than the landlord) by statute, charter or franchise (s. 5). The mode of exercise of the occupier’s right is subject to certain limitations. The ground game is only to be taken by him or by persons whom he has duly authorized in writing, who must be members of his family or his servants or bona fide employed by him for reward to take ground game. The written authority must be produced on demand to persons having concurrent rights to take and kill the ground game (s. 1 (1) (c)). Firearms may not be used by night, nor may poison be used, nor may spring traps be set except in rabbit holes (s. 6); nor may ground game be killed on days or seasons or by methods prohibited by statute in 1880 (s. 10).
In the case of moorland and unenclosed lands (which are not arable and do not consist of small detached portions of less than 25 acres) the occupier may between the 1st of September and the 31st of March kill and take ground game; but between the 1st of September and the 10th of December firearms may not be used (1880, s. 1 (3); 1906, s. 2). In the case of such lands the occupiers and the owners of the sporting rights may between the 1st of September and the 10th of December make and enforce for their joint benefit agreements for taking the ground game. The Agricultural Holdings Act 1906 (operating from 1909) deals,inter alia, with damage to crops by deer and winged game, but does not apply to damage by hares or rabbits. The tenant of agricultural land is entitled to compensation for damage to his crops exceeding 1s. per acre over the area affected if caused by game, “the right to kill or take which is vested neither in him nor in any one claiming under him other than the landlord and which the tenant has not permission in writing to kill” (s. 2). The right of the tenant is indefeasible and cannot becontracted away. Disputes as to amount are to be settled by arbitration; but claims to be effectual must be made as to growing crops before reaping, raising or feeding off, and as to cut crops before carrying. In the case of contracts of tenancy created before the 1st of January 1909, allowances are to be made if by their terms compensation for damage by game is stipulated for, or an allowance of an agreed amount for damage by game was expressly made in fixing the rent. The compensation is payable by the landlord subject to his right to be indemnified in cases where the sporting rights are not vested in him.
Sporting Rights.—Sporting rights (i.e.rights of fowling or of shooting, or of taking or killing game or rabbits, or of fishing), when severed from the occupation of land, are subject to income or property tax, and to assessment for the purpose of local rates (Rating Act 1874); and in valuing land whether for rates or taxes the value of the sporting rights is now an important and often the chief item of value in beneficial occupation of the land. Where the sporting rights are the landlord’s, the rate thereon is paid in the first instance by the tenant and deducted from his rent. Where the sporting right is reserved and let, the rating authority may rate either the landlord or the sporting tenant as occupier of the right. The Ground Game Acts have not affected the liability to assessment of concurrent rights of killing hares and rabbits reserved by a landlord, or of a concurrent right granted by the occupier (Ryde (2nd ed.), 385-387). The ownership of sporting rights severed from the ownership or occupation of the land over which they are exercisable is not an interest in land giving the electoral franchise or a claim for compensation if the land is taken under the Lands Clauses Consolidation Acts.
Scotland.—By the law of Scotland all men have right and privilege of game on their own estates as a real right incident thereto, which does not pass by an agricultural lease except by express words, or in the case of ground game by the act of 1880. The landlord is liable to the tenant for damage done to the surface of the lands in exercise of his right to the game and also for extraordinary damage by over-preserving or over-stocking. Under an act of 1877 he was liable for excessive damage done by rabbits or game reserved to or retained under a lease granted after the 1st of January 1878, or reserved by presumption of common law; this act from 1909 onwards is superseded by the provisions of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1906. Night poaching is punished by the same act as in England, and day poaching by an act of 1832 and the act of 1882. Until 1887 poaching by night under arms was a capital offence. The definition of game in Scotland for purposes of night poaching is the same as in England. The provisions of the act of 1832 as to game trespass by day apply also to deer, roe, rabbits, woodcock, snipe, rails and wild duck; but in other respects closely resemble those of the English act of 1831.
Offences against the game laws are not triable by justices of the peace, but only in the sheriff court. The close time for game birds in Scotland is the same as in England, so far as dealing in them is concerned, but differs slightly as to killing. Black game may not be killed between the 10th of December and the 25th of August, nor ptarmigan between the 10th of December and the 20th of August. There is no close time for red, fallow or roe deer, or rabbits. By an old Scots act of 1621 (omitted from the recent wholesale repeal of such acts) no one may lawfully kill game in Scotland who does not own a plough-gate of land except on the land of a person so qualified.
Ireland.—The common law as to game is the same for Ireland as for England. The game laws of Ireland are contained partly in acts passed prior to the union (1698, 1707, 1787 and 1797), partly in acts limited to Ireland, and as to the rest in acts common to the whole United Kingdom.
Under the act of 1698 no one may kill game in Ireland who has not a freehold worth £40 a year or £1000 net personality, and elaborate provisions are made by that and later acts against the keeping of sporting dogs by persons not qualified by estate to kill game. British officers and soldiers in Ireland appear to have been much addicted to poaching, and their activities were restrained by enactments of 1698 and 1707.
Night poaching in Ireland is dealt with by an act of 1826. Trespass on lands in pursuit of game to which the landlord or lessor has by reservation exclusive right is summarily punishable under an act of 1864, which includes in the definition of game, woodcock, snipe, quails, landrails, wild duck, widgeon and teal. Under the Land Act 1881 the landlord of a statutory holding may at the commencement of the term subject to the Ground Game Acts retain and exercise the exclusive right of taking “game” as above defined.
A game licence is not required for taking or killing rabbits. But in other respects the law as to game licences, dog licences and licences to deal in game is the same as in Great Britain.
British Possessions Abroad.—The English game laws have not been carried to any colony as part of the personal law of the colonists, nor have they been extended to them by imperial or colonial legislation. But the legislatures of many colonies have passed acts to preserve or protect native or imported wild animals, and in some of these statutes the protected animals are described as game. These statutes are free from feudal prepossessions as to sporting rights, and are framed rather on the lines of the Wild Birds Protection Acts than on the English game laws, but in some possessions,e.g.Quebec, sporting leases by the crown are recognized. The acts since 1895 are indicated in the annual summary of colonial legislation furnished in theJournalof the Society of Comparative Legislation.
See also Oke’sGame Laws, 4th ed., by Willis Bund (1897); Warry,Game Laws of England(1897); Marchant and Watkins,Wild Birds Protection Act(1897).